We now need to add price gouging to this. It's not as irrelevant as most people think. A perfect example of this is the resort to fashion and branding to jack up the price and appropriate surplus value for the owners of the production forces. I don't think this is an example of a little greed here and there. Its becoming ever so prevalent. Rent is not a commodity but it helps to understand this. We like to think that the price of rent we pay to landlords is not subject to whim, but it is.
i should probably share my economic inclinations by revealing that I found these two videos while searching for clarification on the definition of subjective use value to augment my reading Mises' theory of money and credit. That said, I enjoyed your video and think you made some good points. Your conclusion, however, os flawed by your own definition of commodity. A commodity is labor plus capital. It is the capitalist that puts up this capital (and often contributes labor as well). It is the c
WHAT!!!!!! CAPITALISTS DON'T HAVE TO WORK????? THERE IS A FEW IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL FALLACIES IN YOUR ECONOMIC THINKING WHICH DISCREDIT YOU AS A GOOD ECONOMICS TEACHER.
@ivanjrt don't get angry because you choose to deconstruct a statement based on your preconceived ideas. you know exactly the point this fellow is making despite the inherent 'slippery' nature of language. the world of perception is the most plastic creation of mankind.
@pecosRoy SO WHAT IS HIS POINT???? THAT CAPITALISTS DON'T WORK AS HARD???? WELL MAYBE IT IS NOT ABOUT WORKING HARD BUT WORKING SMART. A GOOD ENTREPRENEUR OR CAPIALIST BECOMES RICH IF HE OFERED A GREAT SERVICE TO SOCIETY WHO VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO PURCHASE THE GOODS.
@ivanjrt this fellow is explaining a particular perceptual viewpoint, that being marxist economics. in that viewpoint the word 'work' has a somewhat different meaning than the one you assume it does. any perceptual viewpoint may be deconstructed from any other perceptual vantage, or even within the same one and that's even before you attempt to impose the question of morality or personalization. 'working smart' is a crock. believe what you want to----NOTHING's really true.
@ivanjrt my rant continues....based on your appearance of being offended, i'd say you have some hidden guilt and don't really and fully believe what you say. it also appears that for you the ends justify the means. have you heard the expression 'every saw cuts both ways'? at no time in the video did this fellow advocate any action other than consideration of the ideas he presented. are you so immature that YOU can't even do that? are you flexible enough to go beyond morality in a polite talk?
yep, true... legal fictions can not create anything, i.e. value. So the only way that they (people hiding behind these legal fictions) got so rich was by deceit, fraud, extortion, .... stealing/exploiting fellow men. This can of course create some legal problems :), but there are ways around that, e.g. trough contracts where human beings (out of ignorance) sign something that actually makes them (legal) fictions in the eyes of the corporate state.
Nice Video. I really liked your video youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed check out this site called tubeviews [dot net] It has really done wonders for me, I have build 3 channels up with videos at top in position and this is my forth channel i'm going to working on.
How does one quantify something as qualitative as labour? Would it not simply be more intuitive to determine a commodity's value by its utility? Why should a useless commodity that received hours upon hours of human labour be regarded as valuable, while a useful commodity produced by a machine or nature be regarded as valueless? Why should we abstract something as subjective as value to such a high degree?
We determine a commodity's value by its utility when we are discussing use value. This lets us understand certain things about a commodity. For instance some commodity are means of production, others consumer goods. This is a distinction we can only understand thru use value. But if we are to understand exchange as well as the wider social relations of capitalism we need a value category that addressed the way diverse activities are coordinated to produce commodities.
Human labour derives its value from its ability to produce useful goods. The ultimate value of any good, its use-value, is determined subjectively by individuals. To argue that an apple produced within an orchard is more "valuable" than an apple produced solely by nature is absurd. What I'm arguing is that human labour is not in and of itself "valuable".
in a capitalist society commodities are produced specifically for the purpose of being exchanged, not for being consumed by the producer. To the producer they have no use-value apart from their exchange value. How are we to explain exchange value then if we are confined to the sphere of use?
In terms of your orchard example- an apple not grown in the orchard is still worth the socially necessary labor time it takes to make an apple b/c value is a social creation.
Also when you say that human labor "derives its value" you are confusing labor power with labor. Labor creates value, it doesn't have value. Labor power- the capacity for creating value- has value. We usually measure this in wages. But it doesn't make sense to say the value of labor. That's like saying "the value of value".
I would say that exchange value is, and should continue to be determined by demand (which is determined by perceived utility, which often fluctuates violently) and supply. Water for instance is in great demand and is highly abundant within North America, which explains its low cost. If however our source of fresh water was reduced by 99%, the price would surely skyrocket.
People would be willing to exchange more of their wealth for something as necessary as water. Another example might be LCD televisions, which are expensive due to artificial scarcity and relatively high demand. If demand suddenly plummeted, prices would collapse.
The LTV explains the nature of value creation for freely reproducible goods. It's an abstraction used to explain the inner mechanism of capitalism, abstracted from the specific details of the world it is operating in. Once we set it in motion in the real world there are all sorts of things that distort the appearance of value: temporary scarcities, monopoly, drought, etc. But these are not exception to the LTV. They just enter in at a different stage of the analysis, once we understand value.
I agree that demand and supply are important features for understanding price. The LTV explains much more than price- the social relations of capitalism, the motion of these relations via investment strategies, competition and class struggle, etc. In terms of the narrow focus on price which you seem only interested in, the LTV explains how demand and supply are created in the 1st place via the investment strategies of capitalists.
Supply is determined by the amount of labor expended in production. Demand is determined, not by subjective preference, but by the amount of wages and profit available for spending. consumer subjectivity, a highly manipulated and changing phenomena under capitalism, only tells us which commodity is preferred over others. That's a useful category for business analysis. It's not as useful for understanding the social relations of capitalism.
Question: "....to increase the division of labor and machinery..." Marx. What is exactly meant by "devision of labor" here, isit restructuring and economizing through exploitation? Is there any vidoe on this?
Thanks for all those great vids, I just found about it and planning to see it all.
One more question if you don't mind answering: What do you think of Noam Chomsky?
I often enjoy Chomsky's opinions and style. He doesn't do much political economy- which is my main interest. I'm afraid I don't understand your other question re division of labor. Is that quote from my video or from Marx? My videos on the labor process have focused more on automation than division, though the two phenomenon are closely related. "The Matrix and Machines" is probably the best of my vids on automation.
Money has evolved the expansion of the means of production,in which paper currency,in essencelike debit cards now showing numbers on your bank account,that have no real use until thesenumbers or papers are exchanged for commodities.
What is defined as value in the free market is as you point out has no solidity,as one man is willing to pay,more than the next to buy something, Then we are at the supply and demand stage. LOOK forward to your vids.
Plus, the price I am willing to pay depends on how "rich" I am and/or how "frugal" I am. ONE man will grumble over paying 50 cents for an ice cream cone. ANOTHER man may drop a 20-dollar bill on the counter and say "Keep the change"! (Again I'm sure you'll agree.)
You are making an important point that is oftwn brought up in discussing the labor theory of value (a topic I a working on a video for). My response in brief: We buy and sells things according to money price. Supply and Demand help us understand price fluctuations. Labor value helps us understand equilibrium prices and the exchange ratios between commodities. (to be cont.
Human labor is the underlying stuff of value, represented in commodities that is being traded, but in order to trade we must represent that labor with money. People react to the money price of a commodity when they buy and sell things. This money price is set by supply and demand.Underneath this money price is the reality that people are exchanging their labor with each other. Behind the minor fluctuations of supply and demand lie the ratios at which commodities exchange.
Well-central banks control the supply of money around a narrow equilibrium rate. That explains some social phenomena and is important to talk about (and I hope to talk about it in another video), but another important question is: what forces determine the general supply and demand for money? What is an equilibrium supply of money and what forces move capitalism toward or away from this supply? One day I hope to address all of this.
Cost vs. worth. The central banks determine the COST of money (and the AMOUNT of money in curculation) by setting the interest rate. It is the CONSUMER (the "spender") who determines the WORTH OF MONEY. If there is a high demand for money, its "worth" increases. If, on the other hand, the demand is zero, the worth of that money is... zero! (You can't even give it away.)
This has been flagged as spam show
Please share with me what a CEO produces through his or her "labor"
Mises? Oh, please spare us! Enlighten us as to how his conclusion is flawed. We can't wait to hear it
dialectical44 2 months ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We now need to add price gouging to this. It's not as irrelevant as most people think. A perfect example of this is the resort to fashion and branding to jack up the price and appropriate surplus value for the owners of the production forces. I don't think this is an example of a little greed here and there. Its becoming ever so prevalent. Rent is not a commodity but it helps to understand this. We like to think that the price of rent we pay to landlords is not subject to whim, but it is.
dialectical44 2 months ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 2 months ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 2 months ago
Comment removed
dialectical44 2 months ago
i should probably share my economic inclinations by revealing that I found these two videos while searching for clarification on the definition of subjective use value to augment my reading Mises' theory of money and credit. That said, I enjoyed your video and think you made some good points. Your conclusion, however, os flawed by your own definition of commodity. A commodity is labor plus capital. It is the capitalist that puts up this capital (and often contributes labor as well). It is the c
waderodenmayer 6 months ago
WHAT!!!!!! CAPITALISTS DON'T HAVE TO WORK????? THERE IS A FEW IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL FALLACIES IN YOUR ECONOMIC THINKING WHICH DISCREDIT YOU AS A GOOD ECONOMICS TEACHER.
ivanjrt 1 year ago
@ivanjrt don't get angry because you choose to deconstruct a statement based on your preconceived ideas. you know exactly the point this fellow is making despite the inherent 'slippery' nature of language. the world of perception is the most plastic creation of mankind.
pecosRoy 7 months ago
@pecosRoy SO WHAT IS HIS POINT???? THAT CAPITALISTS DON'T WORK AS HARD???? WELL MAYBE IT IS NOT ABOUT WORKING HARD BUT WORKING SMART. A GOOD ENTREPRENEUR OR CAPIALIST BECOMES RICH IF HE OFERED A GREAT SERVICE TO SOCIETY WHO VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO PURCHASE THE GOODS.
ivanjrt 7 months ago
@ivanjrt this fellow is explaining a particular perceptual viewpoint, that being marxist economics. in that viewpoint the word 'work' has a somewhat different meaning than the one you assume it does. any perceptual viewpoint may be deconstructed from any other perceptual vantage, or even within the same one and that's even before you attempt to impose the question of morality or personalization. 'working smart' is a crock. believe what you want to----NOTHING's really true.
pecosRoy 7 months ago
@ivanjrt my rant continues....based on your appearance of being offended, i'd say you have some hidden guilt and don't really and fully believe what you say. it also appears that for you the ends justify the means. have you heard the expression 'every saw cuts both ways'? at no time in the video did this fellow advocate any action other than consideration of the ideas he presented. are you so immature that YOU can't even do that? are you flexible enough to go beyond morality in a polite talk?
pecosRoy 7 months ago
Comment removed
canaan1967 1 year ago
Comment removed
canaan1967 1 year ago
opchldexio: Sometimes I get emotional and I would like to buy a Ferrari. How come I cannot buy one even after years of saving? :-)
Before you can be willing to spend a certain amount of
money you must own that money.
Therefore, demand is not determined solely by your
emotional decisions but also by your income.
And your income depends highly on your social relations:
some people work a lot and do not get rich, others get rich
without even working.
giorgioxyzb 2 years ago
Well done! A very succint, comprehensive overview of the idea. Thanks for making such helpful videos
raptor1056 2 years ago
yep, true... legal fictions can not create anything, i.e. value. So the only way that they (people hiding behind these legal fictions) got so rich was by deceit, fraud, extortion, .... stealing/exploiting fellow men. This can of course create some legal problems :), but there are ways around that, e.g. trough contracts where human beings (out of ignorance) sign something that actually makes them (legal) fictions in the eyes of the corporate state.
bergweg 2 years ago
Another thing is that laborers get paid with debt (money)....
bergweg 2 years ago
not all money is debt. money can represent real value. That is the only reason we use it in exchange.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Could you explain how we can distinguish between money that represents real value and money that is debt?
Thank you in advance
giorgioxyzb 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice Video. I really liked your video youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed check out this site called tubeviews [dot net] It has really done wonders for me, I have build 3 channels up with videos at top in position and this is my forth channel i'm going to working on.
Nice.
homidjdfer 3 years ago
Labour should only be regarded as valuable if the end product is demanded, indicating perceived utility.
gunman806 3 years ago
How does one quantify something as qualitative as labour? Would it not simply be more intuitive to determine a commodity's value by its utility? Why should a useless commodity that received hours upon hours of human labour be regarded as valuable, while a useful commodity produced by a machine or nature be regarded as valueless? Why should we abstract something as subjective as value to such a high degree?
gunman806 3 years ago
We determine a commodity's value by its utility when we are discussing use value. This lets us understand certain things about a commodity. For instance some commodity are means of production, others consumer goods. This is a distinction we can only understand thru use value. But if we are to understand exchange as well as the wider social relations of capitalism we need a value category that addressed the way diverse activities are coordinated to produce commodities.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Human labour derives its value from its ability to produce useful goods. The ultimate value of any good, its use-value, is determined subjectively by individuals. To argue that an apple produced within an orchard is more "valuable" than an apple produced solely by nature is absurd. What I'm arguing is that human labour is not in and of itself "valuable".
gunman806 3 years ago
in a capitalist society commodities are produced specifically for the purpose of being exchanged, not for being consumed by the producer. To the producer they have no use-value apart from their exchange value. How are we to explain exchange value then if we are confined to the sphere of use?
In terms of your orchard example- an apple not grown in the orchard is still worth the socially necessary labor time it takes to make an apple b/c value is a social creation.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Also when you say that human labor "derives its value" you are confusing labor power with labor. Labor creates value, it doesn't have value. Labor power- the capacity for creating value- has value. We usually measure this in wages. But it doesn't make sense to say the value of labor. That's like saying "the value of value".
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I would say that exchange value is, and should continue to be determined by demand (which is determined by perceived utility, which often fluctuates violently) and supply. Water for instance is in great demand and is highly abundant within North America, which explains its low cost. If however our source of fresh water was reduced by 99%, the price would surely skyrocket.
gunman806 3 years ago
People would be willing to exchange more of their wealth for something as necessary as water. Another example might be LCD televisions, which are expensive due to artificial scarcity and relatively high demand. If demand suddenly plummeted, prices would collapse.
gunman806 3 years ago
The LTV explains the nature of value creation for freely reproducible goods. It's an abstraction used to explain the inner mechanism of capitalism, abstracted from the specific details of the world it is operating in. Once we set it in motion in the real world there are all sorts of things that distort the appearance of value: temporary scarcities, monopoly, drought, etc. But these are not exception to the LTV. They just enter in at a different stage of the analysis, once we understand value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I agree that demand and supply are important features for understanding price. The LTV explains much more than price- the social relations of capitalism, the motion of these relations via investment strategies, competition and class struggle, etc. In terms of the narrow focus on price which you seem only interested in, the LTV explains how demand and supply are created in the 1st place via the investment strategies of capitalists.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Supply is determined by the amount of labor expended in production. Demand is determined, not by subjective preference, but by the amount of wages and profit available for spending. consumer subjectivity, a highly manipulated and changing phenomena under capitalism, only tells us which commodity is preferred over others. That's a useful category for business analysis. It's not as useful for understanding the social relations of capitalism.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
None of that is created by humans ever could be perfect. Yet, in other hand, people who want to improve their situation can improve their situation.
tomfromeur 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
but those rich and powerful had to start somewhere... most of em are hard working folk not bums
faszika 3 years ago
Question: "....to increase the division of labor and machinery..." Marx. What is exactly meant by "devision of labor" here, isit restructuring and economizing through exploitation? Is there any vidoe on this?
Thanks for all those great vids, I just found about it and planning to see it all.
One more question if you don't mind answering: What do you think of Noam Chomsky?
8Marx8 3 years ago
I often enjoy Chomsky's opinions and style. He doesn't do much political economy- which is my main interest. I'm afraid I don't understand your other question re division of labor. Is that quote from my video or from Marx? My videos on the labor process have focused more on automation than division, though the two phenomenon are closely related. "The Matrix and Machines" is probably the best of my vids on automation.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
thanks
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
This gets better all the time.Brilliant Brendon
Money has evolved the expansion of the means of production,in which paper currency,in essencelike debit cards now showing numbers on your bank account,that have no real use until thesenumbers or papers are exchanged for commodities.
What is defined as value in the free market is as you point out has no solidity,as one man is willing to pay,more than the next to buy something, Then we are at the supply and demand stage. LOOK forward to your vids.
nbm34 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, good video! I really like it! Make sure to come check out my car site at: CarCommunities . Com
oraleepettietdu 3 years ago
I * DO * NOT * measure the value of something by asking myself what it would take for me to make it myself.
Almost NO ONE -- EVER -- measures the value of something by asking how much work went into making it!
WHO CARES! We are not "reasonable." We are emotional. We are driven by impulses that are beyond our own comprehension. (I'm sure you'll agree.)
opchidexio 4 years ago
Plus, the price I am willing to pay depends on how "rich" I am and/or how "frugal" I am. ONE man will grumble over paying 50 cents for an ice cream cone. ANOTHER man may drop a 20-dollar bill on the counter and say "Keep the change"! (Again I'm sure you'll agree.)
opchidexio 4 years ago
Comment removed
giorgioxyzb 2 years ago
You are making an important point that is oftwn brought up in discussing the labor theory of value (a topic I a working on a video for). My response in brief: We buy and sells things according to money price. Supply and Demand help us understand price fluctuations. Labor value helps us understand equilibrium prices and the exchange ratios between commodities. (to be cont.
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Thanks, "Professor."
(Wow. A fellow has to get up pretty EARLY to stump YOU! lol!)
opchidexio 4 years ago
Human labor is the underlying stuff of value, represented in commodities that is being traded, but in order to trade we must represent that labor with money. People react to the money price of a commodity when they buy and sell things. This money price is set by supply and demand.Underneath this money price is the reality that people are exchanging their labor with each other. Behind the minor fluctuations of supply and demand lie the ratios at which commodities exchange.
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Yeah. Sure. I knew that. :P
opchidexio 4 years ago
Yes, but what determines the worth of the money? The crooked central banks.
526norton 4 years ago
Well-central banks control the supply of money around a narrow equilibrium rate. That explains some social phenomena and is important to talk about (and I hope to talk about it in another video), but another important question is: what forces determine the general supply and demand for money? What is an equilibrium supply of money and what forces move capitalism toward or away from this supply? One day I hope to address all of this.
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Cost vs. worth. The central banks determine the COST of money (and the AMOUNT of money in curculation) by setting the interest rate. It is the CONSUMER (the "spender") who determines the WORTH OF MONEY. If there is a high demand for money, its "worth" increases. If, on the other hand, the demand is zero, the worth of that money is... zero! (You can't even give it away.)
opchidexio 4 years ago